Education And Training

By SHELLY BANJO

As investors look for guidance in these troubled markets, one question looms above all others:

Whom can you trust?

During boom times, it was easy to hire a financial adviser and put your money on autopilot. Now the market is in chaos and thousands of investors have been devastated by fraud, with Madoffed threatening to become an all-too-common verb.

Small wonder that many investors are getting reluctant to put their faith in experts. More than three-quarters of individuals with at least $1 million to invest intend to move money away from their financial advisers, and more than half intend to leave their advisers altogether, according to Prince & Associates Inc., a market-research firm.

The trouble is, many investors don’t have the time or expertise to make all of their own investment decisions. So, having a professional on your side is crucial. But how can you guarantee that your expert is reliable?

The short answer is that you can’t. There are no guarantees. But you can be a lot more sure than many investors are today.

The first step is to realize that you’re ultimately responsible for your family’s money — you’re the chief executive of your own investment company. Your financial adviser, mutual-fund manager, wealth manager and anyone else who handles your investments should report directly to you. Even if you don’t understand the ins and outs of investing as well as they do, you’re responsible for ensuring that they handle your money properly.

“Being a CEO doesn’t mean you make every trade, but you do have to be able to manage a team of people with quality expertise, realizing that not everyone in the profession knows what they are doing,” says Michael Sonnenfeldt, co-founder of Tiger 21, a peer group for wealthy investors based in New York.

Once you recognize that you’re in charge, you can approach your advisers like a boss — not just a client. That means putting them through a tough vetting process to make sure they’re competent, trustworthy and looking after your best interests. Here are some big questions to keep in mind as you review your candidates:

1. What’s in the adviser’s background?

“Think like an employer,” looking at a potential adviser’s criminal and regulatory record, as well as references from past employers, says Wayne Cooper, founder of Wealth Management Exchange, a social-networking site for high-net-worth investors.

You can find regulatory records for stockbrokers, investment advisers, insurance agents and their firms online, starting at Finra.org, the Financial Industry Regulatory Agency’s Web site. Finra’s BrokerCheck will tell you which states and regulatory organizations that brokers and their firms are registered with, along with the licenses they hold, the exams they’ve passed, and their employment history.

 

How Should Investors Vet Their Money Managers?

3:27

Following news of million-dollar frauds executed by Allen Stanford and Bernie Madoff, investors may be re-examining their own money managers. Dow Jones Newswires’ Shelly Banjo discusses ways to check up on your financial advisor’s credibility.

The site also lists any formal investigations and disciplinary actions initiated by regulators, along with customer disputes, certain criminal charges and financial disclosures, including bankruptcies.

For investment advisers with firms regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission — usually those managing more than $25 million — go to http://adviserinfo.sec.gov and click on “Investment Adviser Search” to see part of the “Form ADV,” a document the SEC requires all investment advisers to fill out when registering.

The online portion of the form will give you information about an adviser’s clients, fees, business and disciplinary history within the past 10 years. The second part of the form — which isn’t online — contains information on an adviser’s services, fees, code of ethics and investment strategies. To see a copy, ask the adviser’s firm, your state regulator or the SEC.

Investors can find more information about advisers, including education and work history, at the Web sites of organizations such as the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc. (www.cfp.net) and the Financial Planning Association (www.fpanet.org).

But all of that leaves an important question open: What exactly constitutes a red flag in an adviser’s history?

“A discriminating person wouldn’t just look at the fact the adviser had a complaint,” says George Brunelle, a New York securities lawyer. He suggests looking for complaints related to customer disputes, fraud or excessive buying and selling of securities, called churning. Investors should zero in on disputes that led to a substantial arbitration award.

On the other hand, some technical infractions — such as failure to comply with continuing-education requirements on time are more common and may be permissible. Either way, there are lots of advisers out there, so “it is best to comparison-shop,” Mr. Brunelle says.

2. What do the adviser’s clients say?

Don’t wholly depend on the reputation of a big firm or recommendations from friends, family or members of your country club. After all, Bernard Madoff would likely have gotten glowing recommendations from many noted people, says David Kudla, chief executive of Mainstay Capital Management in Grand Blanc, Mich.

Stephen Webster

People who refer you to an adviser may also have different goals than you. For instance, your golf buddy may want to retire before age 40 and doesn’t have any kids to think about. But you may be planning to retire at age 75 with money left over for your three kids. Thus, your financial plans and needs will vary drastically.

So, it can be helpful to ask for references from past and current clients in life situations similar to yours. When talking to the clients, get specific about their experiences. How often did the adviser communicate with them? Has the adviser ever admitted to making a mistake? How often do they evaluate their goals with the adviser? Has anything about their relationship surprised or disappointed them? Has the adviser performed well in bull and bear markets? Is the adviser ethical?

Then ask them for additional references from people the adviser hasn’t solicited, says Greg Rogers, founder and president of RayLign Advisory LLC in Greenwich, Conn. “Try to find six degrees of separation from the adviser,” he says. “You’ll get better information if you get indirect references.”

3. How does the adviser get paid?

Knowing how advisers get paid will help you tell if they’re working in your best interest. “It’s no different than going into a clothing store — when a salesperson says you look great, you know they have a bias to sell you clothes,” says Mr. Sonnenfeldt, the Tiger 21 co-founder.

Advisers use a bunch of compensation structures. They may get a commission on the securities they sell; charge fees, either flat or a percentage of the assets they manage for you; work at an hourly rate; or a combination of all of them. Ask advisers to detail exactly how they work and the total compensation picture from managing your portfolio. Be wary of anyone who shies away from answering these questions in a transparent way, Mr. Sonnenfeldt says.

Also ask about conflicts of interest. For example, if advisers work on commission, ask for their firm’s commission schedule and find out if there are a limited number of products or services they can recommend and why. If they can’t justify the limited choice, that’s a red flag. Meanwhile, if advisers take a percentage of assets as a fee, remember that they may be inclined to advise you to avoid moves that may reduce those assets, including charitable giving or buying a new house. Also be wary of an adviser who charges more than 1% or 2% of assets.

4. Where are the adviser’s checks and balances?

The most glaring red flag in the Madoff scandal was the lack of checks and balances. Mr. Madoff’s clients wrote checks and wired money to, and received statements from, Bernard L. Madoff Securities. The operation’s auditing firm, Friehling & Horowitz, had only one licensed accountant and was operating out of a storefront in New City, N.Y. Madoff investors relied on this firm to verify the authenticity of trades, the SEC said in a complaint.

When purchasing investments, make sure you are writing checks to a third-party custodian, like Fidelity Investments Co. or Charles Schwab & Co., not to your financial adviser directly. This way, “an adviser can make purchase decisions based upon my instruction, but they can’t run away with my money,” says Wealth Management Exchange’s Mr. Cooper.

Call the independent institution to verify it’s serving your adviser, and never send checks anywhere but that firm’s business address. What’s more, don’t allow your transaction confirmations and account statements to be mailed to your financial adviser instead of you. You should receive account statements from a third-party custodian.

Likewise, find out what auditors your adviser’s firm uses. Auditors are crucial, since they verify the existence of the assets your adviser manages. Each state has its own database to check if an auditor is licensed. (While you’re at it, check if your adviser has switched accounting firms or custodians recently, a move that could indicate trouble with the previous firm.)

It’s also important to ask advisers about another kind of oversight: how the advisers conduct due diligence on any money managers they recommend investing with. Do they check out the managers’ balance sheets, and how their actions line up with their investment strategies? Do the advisers have a personal relationship with the managers or get kickbacks from referring you?

Note, though, that it isn’t uncommon for advisers to get a referral fee, “as long as they disclose who is getting the money and demonstrate why they are recommending” the particular money manager, says Ken Springer, president of Corporate Resolutions Inc., a corporate-consulting and investigative firm.

5. What’s the adviser’s track record?

Advisers sometimes say they can’t easily describe their track record, since they tailor each portfolio to an individual client’s needs. But that excuse doesn’t hold up. “There are many ways to evaluate an adviser’s track record,” Mr. Sonnenfeldt says.

For example, you might ask: How many clients beat their benchmarks or are in line with their goals? How have clients similar to me fared during recessions? Can you combine all of your clients into a single portfolio and tell me how the overall portfolio did? Remember to ask about both short-term (one year) and long-term (10 years or more) records, and ask if your adviser is using absolute returns or returns relative to the performance of the market.

Next, use the advisers’ record to understand how they make decisions. “You can ask about performance, but what you’re really after is how the adviser processes decisions,” says Mr. Rogers of RayLign Advisory.

He suggests asking advisers to dissect a specific situation that has occurred to them. For instance, you could say, “ ’Take your worst investment and evaluate how you made the investment, monitored it and the decisions you made along the way to stick with it or get out,’ ” he says.

“If you feel they are dodging the question or putting a positive spin on everything, it’s a red flag,” Mr. Rogers says. “It could mean they’re not going to deal with or handle the tough decisions.”

Finally, be watchful for claims of all-too-consistent returns. No adviser can deliver 10% to 20% returns every year. More reasonable — and responsible — is an adviser who says they may get you 10% one year, 2% the next and so on, Mr. Rogers says.

6. Can the adviser put it in writing?

Ask for a formal written outline of the services the adviser will be providing and what fees you will be paying. By setting concrete expectations, you can determine if an adviser is going to, say, “help you set goals and do budgeting or just make investment decisions,” says Ellen Turf, chief executive of the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors.

For instance, you can ask advisers to spell out what they think you are trying to achieve and what they think you should do to get there, including investment strategies, specific benchmarks and suggested financial products. If advisers can’t explain their plan in simple terms, another red flag should go up. Secret strategies like those touted by Mr. Madoff are no longer acceptable, Mr. Sonnenfeldt says.

Also ask advisers to spell out who else stands to gain from your relationship — such as affiliated broker-dealers and insurance agencies — as well as exactly how much the adviser, the adviser’s firm and all those other parties will earn from your business.

Finally, find out whether the advisers are going to take on fiduciary responsibility, in which they are legally bound to act in your best interest. If advisers don’t take this oath, they’re only required to sell you products that are deemed suitable for you — and those may not always be the best fit for your financial situation or objectives.

7. What do other pros think?

Sure, you pay your adviser to do the heavy lifting, but it’s imperative that you double-check any big moves — especially in this turbulent economy.

That means knowing the basics behind your investments, insurance, estate planning and taxes, and then turning to other experts for confirmation. For instance, if your financial adviser recommends investing in commodities, read up on recent news affecting the commodities markets and then search out an expert and ask questions.

“Just like you would ask a specialist for a second opinion on your doctor’s diagnosis,” ask your accountant, lawyer and other financial professionals for their opinions on individual strategies, Ms. Turf says.

—Ms. Banjo is a staff reporter for Dow Jones Newswires in Jersey City, N.J.

Write to Shelly Banjo at shelly.banjo@wsj.com

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page R1

Por STEPHEN FIDLER e DAVID ENRICH de Bruxelas

Uma moeda comum levou os investidores aos confins da Europa, para depois afugentá-los.

A primeira década do euro entrelaçou os sistemas financeiros do continente como nunca antes. Bancos e fundos de investimento de um país que usa o euro se empanturraram de títulos de dívida de outros países da região, sem se preocupar com possíveis desvalorizações de moedas mais suscetíveis, como o dracma, a lira, a peseta e o escudo.

Mas conforme o risco da desvalorização diminuía, outro foi crescendo, quase despercebido pelos investidores: a chance de que os governos, agora sem o apoio de seus bancos centrais, pudessem deixar de pagar suas dívidas.

A primeira pista desse perigo surgiu com os problemas do orçamento da Grécia e, à medida que os investidores foram ficando mais cautelosos em relação à Grécia, as preocupações com a dívida se espalharam até colocar em marcha a ré o processo histórico de integração financeira da Europa — com consequências que agora se evidenciam.

Bancos, seguradoras e fundos de pensão do norte da Europa cortaram os empréstimos aos países mais vulneráveis para proteger o seu dinheiro. Muitos agora só se sentem confortáveis investindo dentro de casa ou nos mercados mais seguros, como a Alemanha.

“Nós estamos vendo a desglobalização, a ‘deseurização’ da zona do euro”, disse Andrew Balls, diretor da administradora de carteira europeia da gigante americana de fundos de investimento Pimco. “Os investidores estão se voltando para seus próprios mercados. Eles ainda podem ter títulos de dívida em carteira, mas não da zona do euro em geral como tinham antes.”

Se a imprudência fiscal em alguns lugares plantou as sementes da crise do euro, foram as decisões de investimento dentro da zona do euro que a aprofundaram, tornando-a intratável.

Depois de bater em retirada, os grandes investidores do norte da Europa provavelmente não vão retornar tão cedo ao mercado de dívida da periferia da zona do euro, dizem participantes do mercado. Carsten Brzeski, um economista do ING Bank, em Amsterdã, acredita que a propensão de investir no mercado doméstico vai persistir mesmo se os líderes políticos conseguirem encontrar uma solução imediata para a crise. “Investidores não esquecem facilmente”, disse.

“Todo mundo parou de investir em certas partes da zona do euro”, disse Philippe Delienne, presidente e diretor-presidente da Convictions Asset Management, em Paris, que tem 776 milhões de euros em ativos sob gestão.

Ele acrescentou, referindo-se aos títulos de dívida soberana da Alemanha: “Você não pode mais dizer que a Itália é como o ‘bund’ [...] Para nos proteger, estamos agora comprando ‘bunds’.”

Para as nações muito endividadas que precisam emitir dívida para quitar as que estão vencendo, a maré de baixa é presságio de uma longa batalha.

A escala da mudança sugere que a zona do euro não está meramente sofrendo uma crise de confiança de curto prazo mas que a tábua de salvação de alguns governos está se encurtando, e talvez fique pequena por muitos anos, deixando alguns países expostos e em risco de colapso financeiro.

Na pior das hipóteses, o aperto poderia dar início a uma onda de moratórias que ameaçaria aleijar o sistema bancário europeu, provocando um profundo processo de recessão. Um resultado poderia ser a saída de um ou mais países da união monetária, ou mesmo a sua desintegração.

Esse recuo dos investidores não deu sinal de reversão depois da recente reunião de cúpula dos líderes europeus, que não produziu medidas que parececem capazes de resolver a crise.

A primeira década do euro foi muito diferente. A moeda foi introduzida em 1999. Os investidores — não mais preocupados com as desvalorizações cambiais — passaram a ver os títulos de dívida das economias mediterrâneas como substitutos próximos para aqueles da Alemanha ou de outras economias sólidas, e se deixaram seduzir pelos retornos ligeiramente mais altos.

Outra atrativo era que os fundos de pensão preferiam que seus investimentos estivessem denominados na mesma moeda que suas obrigações, o euro.

Incentivos regulatórios também contribuíram. O Banco Central Europeu permite que qualquer banco da região deposite títulos de dívida soberana em troca de empréstimos de curto prazo, dentro dos chamados acordo de recompra, ou “repos”. Isso era rentável para os bancos, uma vez que o rendimento dos títulos excedia o custos dos empréstimos, e inicialmente foi um incentivo para a compra de títulos da zona do euro.

As operações monetárias do ECB contribuíram para facilitar a tomada de empréstimos muito baratos pelas nações mais fracas. E as operações estimularam a visão de que nunca seria permitida a quebra de um credor soberano da zona do euro, dizem Simon Johnson, um ex-economista-chefe do Fundo Monetário International, e Peter Boone, em um trabalho escrito para o Instituto Peterson para Economia Internacional.

Como o risco de moratória era visto como zero, os bancos europeus não tinham que fazer reservas de capital contra os títulos soberanos da zona do euro que tinham em carteira. Isso dava aos bancos uma razão a mais para comprá-los, especialmente depois que a crise financeira de 2008 corroeu os colchões de proteção dos bancos.

Um raro dissidente do clamor para investir nesses títulos de dívida foi o fundo de pensão da Heineken NV. Logo no começo de 2005, o fundo de desfez de dezenas de milhões de euros em títulos de governos menos sólidos. “A diferença de rendimento [...] era tão pequena comparada ao risco envolvido que nós decidimos vender tudo ao redor do Mediterrâneo e investir apenas em dívida soberana da Holanda e da Alemanha”, disse Frank de Waardt, diretor-gerente do fundo de 2,2 bilhões de euros. “Nós vendemos Grécia, Itália, França e Portugal. Nós vendemos até Finlândia”, disse ele.

O desempenho do fundo foi pior que o de seus pares, já que vários mergulharam em títulos de dívida de nações da periferia.

Na Grécia, onde no passado a maioria da dívida emitida pelo governo estava nas mãos dos gregos, estrangeiros chegaram a ter 55% dela em 2003. No terceiro trimestre de 2009, a fatia chegou a 76%.

Isso foi apenas semanas antes do novo governo grego tornar público que o déficit orçamentário do país era muito maior do que se acreditava. A crença de que os títulos soberanos da zona do euro eram quase intercambiáveis e que nenhum país entraria em moratória começou a ruir.

Primeiro, a Grécia foi forçada a passar o chapéu para o FMI e para outras zonas do euro. Depois, a Alemanha deixou claro que não pretendia financiar indefinidamente as dívidas daqueles países que considerava esbanjadores.

As preocupações dos alemães se cristalizaram em regras da zona do euro.

Em outubro de 2010, no resort francês de Deauville, a chanceler alemã, Angela Merkel, e o presidente francês, Nicolas Sarkozy, chegaram a um acordo de que qualquer resgate após 2013 necessitaria do envolvimento do setor privado, que precisaria aceitar uma redução no valor dos títulos soberanos em seu poder.

Essa possibilidade levou os investidores a correr de um grande número de governos, provocando um salto nos custos de captação que, em alguns casos, foi contido por compras de títulos de dívida pelo BCE.

Desde então, a fatia de dívida soberana grega em poder de investidores estrangeiros caiu acentuadamente para bem abaixo dos 50%.

Dados da agência Fitch Ratings mostram que os estrangeiros reduziram sua exposição ao mercado de títulos soberanos das nações mais fracas da zona do euro, deixando os papéis nas mãos de investidores domésticos.

E não foi apenas no mercado de dívida soberana que a integração financeira da Europa recuou. Ativos de diversas categorias, incluindo dívida de emrpesas, em Chipre, Grécia, Irlanda, Itália, Portugal e Espanha em poder dos bancos da zona do euro chegaram a US$ 1,9 trilhão em 2007, seis vezes mais que em 2001, mas despencaram 44% , até 30 de junho, de acordo com o Barclays Capital. O Barclays fez os cálculos com base em dados do Banco Internacional de Compensações, o BIS.

O banco português BPI SA já foi um ávido comprador de títulos soberanos de outros países da zona do euro no passado. Em setembro, tinha cortado seu portfólio em cerca de 30%, de acordo com informes obrigatórios do banco às autoridades do mercado.

Agora, “nós provavelmente vamos investir em títulos alemães ou algo similar”, disse Fernando Ulrich, presidente do conselho do comitê executivo.

Rebaixamentos pelas agências de crédito também detiveram os investidores, alguns dos quais têm limites em relação à quantidade de papéis de baixa classificação que podem ter em carteira.

Os títulos de dívida italianos por muito tempo se mantiveram estáveis. Os bancos franceses estavam comprando esses papéis no início do ano e tinham 9% mais em meados de 2011 que no fim de 2010, de acordo com dos dados do BIS.

Mas a estabilidade não durou. O mercado italiano se tornou volátil em julho e agosto, depois de desentendimentos entre o então primeiro-ministro Silvio Berlusconi e seu ministro da Fazenda, Giulio Tremonti, em relação a uma série de assuntos.

Um divisor de águas para os investimentos na zona do euro ocorreu em julho. Líderes europeus, em negociação para expandir o resgate grego, confirmaram que os investidores dos títulos de dívida do país teriam perdas.

“Foi um chamado de alerta para o setor”, disse o executivo de um importante banco francês, que logo começou a se desfazer de seus títulos soberanos italianos. O Deutsche Bank AG informou que reduziu significamente sua “exposição líquida” à Itália, vendendo títulos e comprando proteção para calotes.

Medidas tomadas pelas autoridades europeias este trimestre também podem ter exacerbado os desinvestimentos entre países. Novas regras para garantir que os bancos da região poderiam aguentar marés baixas podem tê-los levado a se desfazerem de dívida mais arrsicada.

O Fundo de Pensão da Indústria de Transportes da Holanda vendeu divida grega no ano passado, e depois espanhola e, então, títulos de curto prazo da Itália, segundo seu diretor de investimentos, Patrick Groenendijk. Ele ainda detém alguns títulos italianos de longo prazo.

Quando indagado se poderia voltar a investir no mercado italiano, Groenendijk foi curto e grosso: “Se você quer uma resposta honesta, quando eles tiverem sua própria moeda”, disse ele.

(Colaboraram Brian Blackstone, Tom Lauricella, William Horobin e Laura Stevens.)

By ERIC FELTEN

The end of March saw two new albums by well-established (which is nicer than saying long-in-the-tooth) pop artists—Madonna’s “MDNA,” and Lionel Richie’s “Tuskegee.” Madonna’s disc of new rave electronica debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard album chart. Mr. Richie’s disc—a collection of his old hits, but now country-fried with Nashville stars—came in at No. 2. Then something remarkable happened. Madonna achieved a notoriety even more embarrassing than her commodified sexuality—her disc took one of the biggest tumbles ever for an album opening at the top. Second-week sales collapsed by more than 86%. And in the weeks since, the decline has only deepened, with “MDNA” now languishing at No. 34 on the chart. Mr. Richie’s record, by contrast, climbed to No. 1, where it has held pride of place for the last two weeks.

Eric Palma

What explains Madonna’s epic fail and Mr. Richie’s surprise success?

It can’t be entirely a matter of promotion. After all, in the lead-up to her disc’s release, Madonna had no less a showcase than the Super Bowl halftime. In a pageant that could have been choreographed by Caligula in collaboration with the Beijing Olympic committee, she featured the lead single from the new album (a song that enjoyed added attention thanks to the obscene gesture delivered by a guest rapper). Think of the show as an informercial for “MDNA”: Given what advertising time costs during the Super Bowl, it’s been estimated that Madonna’s halftime spot was a promotional opportunity worth more than $80 million.

Mr. Richie’s televised promotion was rather modest by comparison—he appeared for an hour on the Home Shopping Network.

Nor does the quality of the music explain it all. Those who go in for Madge’s sort of stuff haven’t been howling that her newest installment of computer-generated thumping isn’t up to snuff. As for Mr. Richie’s collection, though nothing extraordinary, it’s a pleasant reworking of his standard repertoire. (And before you scoff at an aging soul crooner trying twang on for size, keep in mind that the melodic pop Mr. Richie specializes in translates well to the melody-friendly language of country music.)

So what explains the dramatic divergence in the discs’s fortunes? The answer, I think, can be found in the basic question of old vs. new. Mr. Richie found a way to freshen up his “greatest hits.” Madonna is trying to sell new music. Fans of long-established artists may tolerate new works, may even buy them, but rarely do so with the enthusiasm they reserve for the back catalog. Typical is the friend who bragged to me last month she had scored good seats for a coming Bruce Springsteen concert—who then rolled her eyes and said with resignation, “Though, I hear he’s doing lots of material off his new CD….”

Why is it so hard for veteran stars to sell their abundant fans on new music?

Exceptions are rare—Cher scored No. 1 singles more than 33 years apart (“I Got You Babe” in 1965 and “Believe” in 1999). Louis Armstrong managed to keep adding hits to his catalog throughout his long career. Pops was well into his 60s when, in May 1964, he displaced the Beatles from the top of the Billboard singles chart, a spot they had owned for more than three months. Maybe Madonna should cut a cover of “Hello, Dolly.”

Even a songwriting performer of Duke Ellington’s stature and endurance saw his hit-smithing fizzle. When Ellington’s faltering career was revived at the 1956 Newport Jazz Festival, it was not because of the new suite he had written for the occasion, but thanks to a rollicking performance of a decades-old standby, “Diminuendo and Crescendo in Blue.”

One would think that legendary artists would have every advantage needed to put across new hits—they are brands, after all, with large and loyal consumer bases. So why do they struggle so with new product lines? Is it that performers lose their knack for good new tunes? Or is the fault with us, the listeners, that as we get older we lose our ability to connect with new music? Maybe learning to like a song is like learning a new language—it gets harder as we age.

I suspect both play a part—the muse gets weary and the audience gets diffident. But there could also be a Catch-22 at work: If the established musician does something really fresh, her audience is unhappy she’s strayed from what they know and like. But if she keeps doing new songs in the same vein as the old, why should the listener bother with the new release, the old favorites being the perfect expression of the old style?

Mr. Richie managed to escape the conundrum by doing the old favorites in a new way. We’ll see if Madonna is ultimately driven to adopt the same strategy—though I shudder to think how “Like a Virgin” will sound with fiddle and steel guitar.

A version of this article appeared May 4, 2012, on page D10 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: When Old Stars Try to Be New Again.